Hi. Never been to this sub-forum but have a question. Buddy of mine is retired LEO here in CA. He's been getting letters from CalDOJ asking about his RAW he bought 8 years or so ago with his own money. It was his duty weapon, but he owned it. He retired 6 years ago.

Its registered as a RAW and they keep asking if he still has it. He's not answering but is also a bit spooked about keeping it and is considering selling it out of state.

I'm very knowledgeable about laws that effect average folks, but not retired LEO. He's asking for advice and I really don't know what to tell him other than to just reply to the letter letting them know he still has it and intends to keep it.

He is not entirely trusting CalDOJ and is just tossing the letters. My logic is if they are trying to get retirees to get rid of their AR's they will just tell him this and not do anything stupid or rash. He doesn't seem to give them this much credit.

That is exactly what they are doing, there is an opinion by the former AG (Brown) that basically says if it was purchased on department letter head, the individual has no rights to it as it is a RAW purchased after the ban. I believe that if he converts it to Ca legal configuration (bullet button) there is no problem, with it. That being said there is no law that requires him to surrender or sell it out of state, just an opinion and those are like ........ well you know the rest.

Thanks for the reply. I'm well aware of that stupid opinion letter by Brown.

He is as well which is why he is spooked.

Its also a "named" RAW on the original banned list so converting it doesn't help.

He's bummed and I have no advice on what will happen (if anything) should he just keep it.

Crappy situation but he's a family man with grand kids etc., and also not a huge AR fan. It's his only one and if the smart move is to sell it out of state he would be bummed but probably okay with it.

If he isn't a big fan of the platform and not everyone is, and can live with selling it now is the time to sell, he will probably get back what he paid if not more. He can always put the money toward something he likes better anyway, or tuck it away to spoil grand kids with. I don't know how far DOJ will go with it, I haven't heard of them sending letters to retiree's, or at least anyone I know.

Thanks for the reply. He has been getting letters for nearly a year now. Probably 4 or 5 of them. Maybe its because he just tosses them. Who knows.

His inclination is to just sell it out of state or to another officer who is "active". I'll tell him that this may be the best choice if he'd rather not keep it due to the risk. He wants to keep one AR platform, so I encouraged him to just buy a stripped lower soon.

If push comes to shove, Buy a stripped lower. Remove the upper and all the internals from the RAW lower and send DOJ the stripped RAW lower. The only illegal Part of his RAW is the empty lower with the "named" logo on it.
Ya , it's stupid, but hey, this is Kalifornia!

He's under no obligation to answer anything. He's in violation of no law. If they show up at the door (and they might) he's under no obligation to let them in or verify anything.

How he ultimately handles it is up to him, but he's being bullied. It is very silly and a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. Keep throwing the letters away. If they show up, tell them to come back with a warrant. Hint- they won't...

This is the first time I have heard of California DOJ sending these letters out to retired LEO's still in possession of an item that was legal for them to purchase and legally registered to them... I would encourage him to contact his retirement association/past association about the issue. Meanwhile, I'd keep tossing the letters in the shred bin. I'd actually enjoy reading the warrant affidavit or a report that would detail how any LEO could seize the legally registered property in this case... This is a different animal from the usual prohibited persons shenanigans or a firearm possibly in some kind of illegal configuration.

There is no law that requires him to surrender his legally registered personal property.

If he's not a member already, he (and any retired CA LEO) could benefit from joining the RAM of PORAC. Some of their lead issues, aside from insurance, are in the area of retiree firearms issues (i.e. CCW, HR218,...).

The DOJ opinion was rather horribly written. It concluded that an officer had no right to retain an RAW that was personally purchased and registered after the deadline using the special "LEO only" registration process (Penal Code section 30630). In reaching that conclusion, the author looked closely at the rationale for the law and he made a pretty good argument that the purpose of the law was not served when officers retained their RAW post-retirement. The opinion failed to cite any statute that is violated when a retired officer retains possession of an RAW following retirement.

The problem with the opinion is that all of the good reasoning in the world doesn't create a law that doesn't yet exist, nor does it eliminate a law currently in force.

I'd recommend that taking one diagnostic step, request a listing of currently registered weapons from the DOJ. There is form to do this on their website. Make sure the RAW still appears as registered. If that's the case, continued possession is legal. If for some reason, DOJ has removed the registration, then I carefully check as to the reason they did so. The law does not provide an authority for DOJ to remove registrations.

I'm attaching a copy of the DOJ opinion. I am curious as to how the lawyer members of this forum view the opinion.

There is no law that requires him to surrender his legally registered personal property.

If he's not a member already, he (and any retired CA LEO) could benefit from joining the RAM of PORAC. Some of their lead issues, aside from insurance, are in the area of retiree firearms issues (i.e. CCW, HR218,...).

I asked PORAC about supporting a change in the law to allow retirees to purchase high capacity magazines. The silence was deafening.

__________________
If you buy anything because it has "tactical" or "operator" in the name, we probably don't run in the same circles.

If he purchased the gun with a Agency Letterhead , then THE AGENCY OWNS THE GUN, even though he paid for it.
If he bought it, and registered to himself, then used it on duty, it belongs to him.
I would just get a new stripped lower with bullet button, and sell the RAW lower out of state, and send cal DOJ a copy of the sales receipt.

Very interesting that Cal DOJ is keeping tabs on RAWs and when a LEO retires. Actually its scary !

If he purchased the gun with a Agency Letterhead , then THE AGENCY OWNS THE GUN, even though he paid for it.
If he bought it, and registered to himself, then used it on duty, it belongs to him.
I would just get a new stripped lower with bullet button, and sell the RAW lower out of state, and send cal DOJ a copy of the sales receipt.

Very interesting that Cal DOJ is keeping tabs on RAWs and when a LEO retires. Actually its scary !

No, the agency does not own th gun. That is absurd.

He paid for it, it is registered to him. Period.

__________________
Even though I’m retired, I still seem to encounter incredibly stupid people.

LASD Retired
1978-2011

NRA Life Member
CRPA Life Member
NRA Rifle Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer

That is completely untrue. If you are going to make a claim like that, you better have some proof.

Enough Proof?
Absurd ? YES, but so are all kalif gun laws.

"The AP found that some departments allow officers to use the weapons in their off time while others require that the weapons be used only on-duty, although an opinion by the state attorney general issued last year says officers can acquire the guns for any purpose but must relinquish them when they retire."http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/12/21/...t-weapons-ill/

As such, states the AG, “since the retired officer exemption has been removed from the statute, it is evident that a peace officer to whom an employer-owned assault weapon is assigned pursuant to (f)(1) must return the weapon to the employing agency upon retirement. This conclusion comports with the language of the statute, and is compelled by Silveira.” Financial Expense Incurred by Officer An issue of “fairness” has been raised in the past regarding the fact that an officer has spent his or her own funds to purchase the weapon and the compelled return of it would be unfair. The AG’s Opinion addresses this issue as well.

“[W]e do not believe that the fact that a peace officer may have spent his or her own money to buy an assault weapon under subdivision (f)(2) makes this situation materially different from the issue decided in Silveira. The Silveira case stands squarely for the proposition that the continued possession of assault weapons by retired peace officers does not serve law enforcement purposes and is therefore inconsistent with the legislative purpose of the Act, which is to eliminate the availability of assault weapons generally. The source of funds for the purchase of a weapon is not relevant to the issue of whether its possession may be justified on law enforcement grounds.”

At the end of the day ... the guy is in illegal possession of an assault weapon, and he is supposed to dispose of it, why do you think the DOJ is sending him nasty grams ??? They want proof he disposed of it.

Calplinker -- do you really think Cal DOJ gun squad does NOT have your buddy on the APPS list ? and the day will come when they need to build up their numbers of seizures, then they will come knocking on his door.
Or you can listen to all the internet lawyers who say ..."**** the doj and keep it", even though its not their *** on the line.

"The AP found that some departments allow officers to use the weapons in their off time while others require that the weapons be used only on-duty, although an opinion by the state attorney general issued last year says officers can acquire the guns for any purpose but must relinquish them when they retire."http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/12/21/...t-weapons-ill/

As such, states the AG, “since the retired officer exemption has been removed from the statute, it is evident that a peace officer to whom an employer-owned assault weapon is assigned pursuant to (f)(1) must return the weapon to the employing agency upon retirement. This conclusion comports with the language of the statute, and is compelled by Silveira.” Financial Expense Incurred by Officer An issue of “fairness” has been raised in the past regarding the fact that an officer has spent his or her own funds to purchase the weapon and the compelled return of it would be unfair. The AG’s Opinion addresses this issue as well.

“[W]e do not believe that the fact that a peace officer may have spent his or her own money to buy an assault weapon under subdivision (f)(2) makes this situation materially different from the issue decided in Silveira. The Silveira case stands squarely for the proposition that the continued possession of assault weapons by retired peace officers does not serve law enforcement purposes and is therefore inconsistent with the legislative purpose of the Act, which is to eliminate the availability of assault weapons generally. The source of funds for the purchase of a weapon is not relevant to the issue of whether its possession may be justified on law enforcement grounds.”

At the end of the day ... the guy is in illegal possession of an assault weapon, and he is supposed to dispose of it, why do you think the DOJ is sending him nasty grams ??? They want proof he disposed of it.

Calplinker -- do you really think Cal DOJ gun squad does NOT have your buddy on the APPS list ? and the day will come when they need to build up their numbers of seizures, then they will come knocking on his door.
Or you can listen to all the internet lawyers who say ..."**** the doj and keep it", even though its not their *** on the line.

First, a AGENCY LETTER is required for authorization to purchase a AW, that does not make it property of the department as the registration is in the officers name, not the AGENCIES name. To claim that using a AGENCY LETTER to authorize purchase makes it the property of the agency is absurd. When I used an AGENCY LETTER to buy a duty pistol so I could bypass the 10 day wait, did that make the pistol the property of the AGENCY?

Second, instead of posting newspaper articles and more opinions, please show me the actual section of the law that details the process showing where the DOJ can revoke the registration of a lawfully registered AW.

__________________

You can't buy happiness but you can buy guns and that's pretty much the same thing.

Keep the gun, don't answer the letters and keep on keeping on. There not going to come to his house with a warrant and the goon squad. Tell DOJ to kick rocks and find someone else to harass If he's that worried about it then burry it in the backyard or something. Tell DOJ he lost it and cant find it and theres nothing he can do about it. Its up to them to prove it.